A type of “self-help” similar to CBT or so forth, but of course, without any double-blind trial, or placebo-controlled, if it’s possible. But from my point of view, worth investigation, especially in a clinical setting.
What do you think, watching the video, impressions?
Sources:
Harms, E. (1962): “Ethical and Psychological Implications of Religious Conversion”, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 122-131, DOI: 10.2307/3510690
Cathexis definition by Freud Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (PFL 2) p. 49
Georg Schönbächler, Dragica Stojkovic & Brigitte Boothe (2016) Mapping a gap: the concepts of the wish and wishing in psychoanalysis and the neurosciences,Neuropsychoanalysis, 18:2, 163-177, DOI: 10.1080/15294145.2016.1242295
Multimodal frontostriatal connectivity underlies individual differences in self-esteem, Robert S. Chavez and Todd F.
Heatherton, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA, (2014)
Okay, I watched the video and it was impressive. If I start my own cult, I will definitely want to hire your video guy.
My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core, but they are blown out of proportion (“motte and bailey”). The video is an advertisement, using the standard techniques to create a mountain out of a molehill. It’s impressive and technically well-done, but when you are familiar with the pattern, it’s just the same pattern again.
Generally, it feels like a LessWrong-inspired Scientology clone. They even talk about registering as a religion.
This is how it probably works in reality:
1) Create an effective spiral around a few keywords such as “logic”, by providing a few clever insights, and then insisting that investing as much emotional energy as possible in these few insights will fix everything that is wrong with the world, or at least give you personal superpowers.
2) Subtly redefine “logic” to mean “what our leader says”.
The video is an advertisement, using the standard techniques to create a mountain out of a molehill.
The video is an advertisement to create a mountain out of a mountain which is not proved to be a mountain yet. Otherwise, your idea will come across as a molehill even if you had a mountain or not, so it might be effective to pretend to be a mountain. I say the latter for the intersubjective reality of lesswrong (as defined in the video). It’s done to raise awareness around the phenomena/get regular folks interested.
My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core
It is logical, rational & critical thinking after all. Submitting yourself to rationality isn’t too bad? The word doesn’t matter as much as the process. Because people who value comfort, (presume the theory is correct) will rationalize and be a slave to this comfort, how can any thinking be critical if it stems from a flawed paradigm? Maybe even rationalists take this for granted as a human flaw to justify not getting the emotional part. That was speculation and assuming a lot.(intersubjective)
My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core, but they are blown out of proportion (“motte and bailey”).
Are they blown out of proportion because the evidence is the anecdotes/testimonies? We all get it that we need studies and peer-review, that’s what most here would ask for before looking into it but at least see it’s interesting. :D
What is the bait-and-switch here? What’s the partial truth and the underlying falsehood? If you mean with the 4th step not being told before the 3rd and so forth, that makes sense to me, because why wouldn’t it? It’s not like there is a 5th step, it’s all within the video if not there, the website, from there the wiki etc. The steps were generalized in the beginning I think.
Generally, it feels like a LessWrong-inspired Scientology clone. They even talk about registering as a religion.
In Germany you receive a lot of benefits for registering as a religion, as comparable to charity. The latter which they tried for many months, even getting ripped off by lawyers. Can’t register a charity if you don’t accept money because they simply funnel money to charity themselves without being middle-men. But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I’d guess. Teaching neuroscience, evolutionary biology, AGI, in school in depth isn’t too bad?
Create an effective spiral around a few keywords such as “logic”, by providing a few clever insights, and then insisting that investing as much emotional energy as possible in these few insights will fix everything that is wrong with the world, or at least give you personal superpowers.
You’re not supposed to think but to feeeel man. It’s an emotional thing. An abstract definition of whatever you want the subconscious to attach to is enough (math patterns etc).
2) Subtly redefine “logic” to mean “what our leader says”.
Indeed, this isn’t about mathematical logic or whatever. Think of a definition of intelligence, information or stupidity, even known scientists redefine them to escape equations like krauker. Could be seen as metaphor.
Otherwise, your idea will come across as a molehill even if you had a mountain or not, so it might be effective to pretend to be a mountain.
I agree that there is this “arms race” between advertisers and consumers, where advertisers always exaggerate, and then consumers learn to discount everything, so if you enter the debate without exaggerating, the consumers will discount anyway, and it will make you seem like a loser.
It’s done to raise awareness around the phenomena/get regular folks interested.
My impression from this video is that the target audience is, uhm, the people who watch “Zeitgeist” or read “The Secret”, and then can’t stop talking about it for years. (Essentially, people with little critical thinking, searching for the magical “one weird trick” that will solve all their problems.)
And if your audience is the same, then the obvious hypothesis is that your product is also in the same category.
People more rational than this will probably be turned off by this kind of video. I may be wrong here; if any LW regular was impressed positively, please correct me.
Submitting yourself to rationality isn’t too bad?
Depends on what you mean by that. Assuming you already are 100% rational, it would probably be a good thing. Assuming you are just an aspiring rationalist full of biases and mistaken assumptions, submitting yourself to your “rationality” effectively means submitting yourself to your biases and mistakes. (Or your leader’s biases and mistakes; even if we assume their best intentions.)
Are they blown out of proportion because the evidence is the anecdotes/testimonies?
You mean those two or three seconds of anecdotes, followed by minutes of the standard advertising technique “this will be the best thing in your life… but before we get to anything specific, let me show you these cool pictures with emotional music… and more pictures and more music… and more… are you hooked on already? good… now more pictures and music… and more vague talk… okay, you have already spent twenty minutes of your time listening to me, so I guess you are ready to buy my product now”.
Teaching neuroscience, evolutionary biology, AGI, in school in depth isn’t too bad?
Let me guess… the teaching will be heavily interspersed with talking about “clicking”.
(This is how Scientologists do it. They take something that already exists out there, simplify it sometimes to absurd levels, mix it with their Scientology lingo, and pretend that L Ron Hubbard invented all of that. If some of that advice worked for you, great, now you are a new believer in Scientology, convinced by your own experience.)
...
Uhm, is there a way to describe your techniques in a manner targeted to readers of LessWrong? You know, facts and proofs (or mere opinions where you admit they are mere opinions), without all this hype and nebulous promises?
Because you keep posting stuff that obviously doesn’t fit the local audience, so why exactly do you keep doing that? This is not the first time you advertised this here.
Do you believe you are doing it the right way? The total lack of upvotes (and occassional downvotes) should be a sufficient hint. Silence is not consent here, unless accompanied by upvotes.
Or do you simply not have any other way to present your stuff? Then I suspect there is simply nothing there, behind the shiny clouds of advertising.
My impression from this video is that the target audience is, uhm, the people who watch “Zeitgeist” or read “The Secret”, and then can’t stop talking about it for years. (Essentially, people with little critical thinking, searching for the magical “one weird trick” that will solve all their problems.)
In my opinion, this is a big part of the target audience with the video. Learning about neuroscience/rationality/evolutionary biology and so forth instead of some other curriculum which bases itself on unscientific things has a higher expected value in my opinion. Take a random person, they know nothing about rationality.
This book is written by the same person, if you take a few moments, it’s not long to read some you can understand a little bit more what general public will be pushed towards, what kind of insights: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e3ade7cdccc4aba33789686b9b9d765d7f14ae7b&dn=Real+Answers&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fzer0day.ch%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969 (he’s uploaded it himself)
And if your audience is the same, then the obvious hypothesis is that your product is also in the same category.
No, because rational people want to become more rational what’s the problem with a heuristic that is based on “Is this the most rational thing to do in this moment?” Or logical, whatever.
People more rational than this will probably be turned off by this kind of video. I may be wrong here; if any LW regular was impressed positively, please correct me.
Yes, it’s meant for the general public. Rational people want evidence, scientific studies, peer-review, which is underway but it will take plenty of time. Meanwhile, with the available evidence you can make a decision wheter it is worth pursuing that which you already seek (rationality) but on an emotional level. Which is what it is all about.
Depends on what you mean by that. Assuming you already are 100% rational, it would probably be a good thing. Assuming you are just an aspiring rationalist full of biases and mistaken assumptions, submitting yourself to your “rationality” effectively means submitting yourself to your biases and mistakes. (Or your leader’s biases and mistakes; even if we assume their best intentions.)
I agree, but it still hints towards neuroscience/evolutionary biology within the video and someone who submits themselves to rationality or logic should at least take a moment to read up on it and by visiting the website, wiki and so forth. Of course if the video didn’t mention any of these things someone who values rationality might do things which are a result of a lack of knowledge. But knowledge is what such a person seeks, I presume.
Even if biases and mistakes are introduced it easily be seen as a higher expected value that people do this rather then not, someone who simply studies neuroscience/evolutionary biology and spreads the message is better. Because you have to take account if something is practical or not for the human species and evolving itself.
If you want to capitlize on people aligning rationality with emotions here you have a great shot at you being the leader not the follower as you’ve obviously noticed something which can happen.
You mean those two or three seconds of anecdotes, followed by minutes of the standard advertising technique “this will be the best thing in your life… but before we get to anything specific, let me show you these cool pictures with emotional music… and more pictures and more music… and more… are you hooked on already? good… now more pictures and music… and more vague talk… okay, you have already spent twenty minutes of your time listening to me, so I guess you are ready to buy my product now”.
MrMind said he was contacting people who ‘clicked’ a long time to see what they’ve done differently since then. Would be interesting to know. You’re right that the video doesn’t go in-depth but it is for a certain audience like I responded just now. Here you can read testimonies: https://logicnation.org/wiki/Testimonies
Let me guess… the teaching will be heavily interspersed with talking about “clicking”.
It’s better if people learn to value critical thinking/rationality in society, clicking only happens if you grow to value something else I think. You can see the world for what it is now.
(This is how Scientologists do it. They take something that already exists out there, simplify it sometimes to absurd levels, mix it with their Scientology lingo, and pretend that L Ron Hubbard invented all of that. If some of that advice worked for you, great, now you are a new believer in Scientology, convinced by your own experience.)
But it doesn’t already exist out there except for the objective reality. You’re not going to remember an essay while you’re meditating on what drives you emotionally. It is a religion, definetly, this logic stuff, that’s exactly the mechanisms which are used. There are 6 B religious people for a reason. But here they praise neuroscience/evolutionary biology/chaos theory/quantum mechanics/mathematics/rationality the list goes on and on and they pray by doing ‘logial tasks’ in line with what they are.
Uhm, is there a way to describe your techniques in a manner targeted to readers of LessWrong? You know, facts and proofs (or mere opinions where you admit they are mere opinions), without all this hype and nebulous promises?
Of course it’s possible especially if one of you make the connection how emotions drive us.
Because you keep posting stuff that obviously doesn’t fit the local audience, so why exactly do you keep doing that? This is not the first time you advertised this here.
That’s because of intersubjective reality, the objective reality is indifferent to local audience. What I am giving is the testimonies and the exercise, when studies are out maybe then people of LessWrong will try to ‘click’ themselves. The problem at hand though, I don’t think evidence or rationality really matters that much.
The intersubjective reality is what drives people here and all across the world.
Do you believe you are doing it the right way? The total lack of upvotes (and occassional downvotes) should be a sufficient hint. Silence is not consent here, unless accompanied by upvotes.
No, of course not, but it would take a long time and besides, studies will speak for themselves if or when they come out.
Or do you simply not have any other way to present your stuff? Then I suspect there is simply nothing there, behind the shiny clouds of advertising.
Sorry, but if I could write like Yudkowsky all of you would at least try it and the world would change for the better. Here’s the time when one of you recognize at least that something is going on and it’s worth more investigation.
But here they praise neuroscience/evolutionary biology/chaos theory/quantum mechanics/mathematics/rationality the list goes on and on and they pray by doing ‘logial tasks’ in line with what they are.
I suppose this is the critical point of disagreement between us. Whether “praising science” is the right direction to go. (Because I don’t doubt that your group is doing a good job at making some people praise science.)
More precisely, whether “praising science” leads to more science, or more pseudoscience. Because as long as you believe some specific pseudoscience is science, it is equally easy to praise it… and the pseudoscience has more degrees of freedom than real science, so unless specific precautions are taken, it can outcompete the real science. (In some sense, those “specific precautions” is what makes science science. And worship is definitely not one of them.)
Now reading the book… I am still at the beginning, but it already makes better impression than the video.
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson and more praise science, in the same way, it was just found out recently, actually today. It’s called Spinozism or Spinoza’s God. You can view a video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54
Where this leads? This is exactly the same with the exception of the latest neuroscience research which builds and complete this, and this “clicking” thing to logic. What’s been done here is what Tyson asks here literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc&feature=youtu.be&t=373
Personally, “the smartest man in the world” Chris Langan might even be on to this as well.
If Bachir has said he has had this for so many years and accomplished so much, looking at these others with “Spoza’s God” a strong correlation is occurring as a part of our intrinsic need to find patterns in things. However true or false they are. Sagan pushed really hard on critical thinking, and Bachir does as well actually. By the way, then people “click” and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense. But we don’t know 100% sure.
What comes next? Well with this new understanding, the documentary will be reuploaded and this is taken into consideration because it is groundbreaking when it comes to the intersubjective reality. Bachir is also going to be speaking at U.N, where he was invited yesterday. where he will talk about this as well although I don’t know if it was because of this.
It’s going to be called Neurospinozism since understandings in neuroscience completes what was missed on earlier.
P.S I am not a part of this I am just a watcher of his stream.
Those tests are pretty sensible to training effects, so giving them twice to the same person would result in a higher score the second time almost no matter what.
Good point, but the experiment could have a control group which doesn’t do anything but takes the tests twice.
And someone probably already did the control-group part of this experiment, i.e. measured how much does the IQ increase after test retake. So we just need to know if the measured IQ of the people who “clicked” increases more that that.
Also, as far as I remember, the effect is something like plus 5 or 10 IQ points. (May differ for different tests, though. Some tests have multiple variants, so even if you benefit from the training, at least you cannot benefit from remembering the correct answers in the previous test.) The people who “clicked” report that their intelligence increased tenfold or hundredfold—they obviously use a different scale, but if that corresponds to +5 or more IQ point, it should be measurable.
Intelligence is not only analytical skills, rhetoric, pattern recognition, more abstract things. Working memory tests might measure g but not overall intelligence, Krakauer defines intelligence and stupidity in specific ways:
Intelligence is, as I say to people, one of the topics about which we have been most stupid. All our definitions of intelligence are based on measurements that can only be applied to humans—by and large, humans that speak English or what have you. An IQ test is not interesting if you’re trying to calculate the intelligence of an octopus—which I would like to know, because I believe in evolution. I think we need to understand where these things come from, and having a definition that applies just to one particular species doesn’t help us. We’ve talked about entropy and computation, and they’re going to be the keys to understanding intelligence.
Let’s go back to randomness. The example I like to give is Rubik’s cube, because it’s a beautiful little mental model, a metaphor. If I gave you a cube and asked you to solve it, and you just randomly manipulated it, since it has on the order of 10 quintillion solutions, which is a very large number, if you were immortal, you would eventually solve it. But it would take a lifetime of several universes to do so. That is random performance. Stupid performance is if you took just one face of the cube and manipulated that one face and rotated it forever. As everyone knows, if you did that, you would never solve the cube. It would be an infinite process that would never be resolved. That, in my definition, would be stupid. It is significantly worse than chance.
Now let’s take someone who has learned how to manipulate a cube and is familiar with various rules that allow you, from any initial configuration, to solve the cube in 20 minutes or less. That is intelligent behavior, significantly better than chance. This sounds a little counterintuitive, perhaps, until you realize that’s how we use the word in our daily lives. If I sat down with an extraordinary mathematician and I said, “I can’t solve that equation,” and he said, “Well, no, it’s easy. Here, this is what you do,” I’d look at it and I’d say, “Oh, yes, it is easy. You made that look easy.” That’s what we mean when we say someone is smart. They make things look easy.
If, on the other hand, I sat down with someone who was incapable, and he just kept dividing by two, for whatever reason, I would say, “What on earth are you doing? What a stupid thing to do. You’ll never solve the problem that way.”
So that is what we mean by intelligence. It’s the thing we do that ensures that the problem is efficiently solved and in a way that makes it appear effortless. And stupidity is a set of rules that we use to ensure that the problem will be solved in longer than chance or never and is nevertheless pursued with alacrity and enthusiasm.
You can ask when you’re a neurospinozist and have logic as your core value, what is the problem which we are given? To understand the world, God, but what else? Why do we have this amazing brain with neuroplasticity, and why do most of us use it to feed something like comfort or validation when looking at neuroscience these things are so flawed?
Personally might be social conditioning, I click into it when I am writing this because it’s just right there in front of us.
Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P
Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually nodragon in the garage.
But that’s not true, science hasn’t contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.
Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer’s definition as well before and after. It’s unlikely g—general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn’t have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.
Linking to Youtube video’s doesn’t help your case.
By the way, then people “click” and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense.
People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it’s not easy to understand that one doesn’t understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.
But we don’t know 100% sure.
That’s something that people say who don’t understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren’t 100% sure, what’s the probability that you attach to your theory being true?
Linking to Youtube video’s doesn’t help your case.
An excellent video which talks about Spinoza and Spinozism, which Einstein and Sagan had faith in… doesn’t help my case? In the same manner, you assume that Spinoza and this isn’t linked, without refuting it.
If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it’s not easy to understand that one doesn’t understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally. If people report wanting to understand the world and is reiterated multiple times, doesn’t go along with the belief you already know it all. You presume that they are lying, in the same manner, Einstein or Sagan lied about their belief in the God of Spinoza. How do we know if someone has converted or not? (I presume that there is a link between God of Spinoza and intelligence, it seems more likely than before, even if it’s a correlation this exercise might imply causality)
That’s something that people say who don’t understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren’t 100% sure, what’s the probability that you attach to your theory being true?
I was euphoric, it was a heuristic. I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning or how to make a calculation outside of intuition. Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself I have too little data honestly. But since we know now that Einstein and Sagan had a similar belief, it seems more likely that this religion will spread but I don’t know how much. If you have the intersubjective/objective definitions from earlier (in the documentary) Spinozism is very intersubjective I presume.
If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning
Yes.
how to make a calculation outside of intuition
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition.
The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you’ve read it before, it’s been updated now.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
I can agree, I shouldn’t have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.
Yes.
Yes.
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
How do you know? Did you do a literature search?
Well, it’s very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can’t be certain of it. I wouldn’t know what to search for. It’s like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock’s Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.
It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
In Germany you receive a lot of benefits for registering as a religion, as comparable to charity. The latter which they tried for many months, even getting ripped off by lawyers. Can’t register a charity if you don’t accept money because they simply funnel money to charity themselves without being middle-men. But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I’d guess
That paragraph sounds like you think in the US terms of registering organsiation. Which actual German registrations do you mean?
Maybe you can email reese or something reese@gamingforgood.net if you are this interested. I have no clue.
It’s hard for me to google because it’s probably in german so you have an easier time. Registering as a charity seems to give tax benefits, religion might not even exist as registration, if so it might be some form of U.N registration.
You saying that you have no clue whether what you said previously said is wrong? First you claim that registering as religion provides benefits and then you claim that it might not exist?
To me your response of giving me the email of Reese (whoever that is) sounds like you don’t care about whether what you are saying is true enough to check it for yourself.
Well, I assume that there has to be some form of registration at some level, for example, to accept donations as they have to be taxed. It’s important when you talk with people to not butcher what they say, write out of context, yes you are right. But you can respond to an entire message.
I figure you were suspicious and welcomed you to investigate, you are the one who read and writes german here and can research the tax agency or whatever. It seems as you just want to be right and don’t care whether something is strange or not.
It seems as you just want to be right and don’t care whether something is strange or not.
The most likely explanation is that what you said is simply a reflection of misunderstanding what someone else told you.
No research of German laws will give me an idea about what you meant with “But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I’d guess”.
From my feeling of suspicion because of strangeness and your answer the default response is to conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about. Or care whether the things you mention as evidence for the advantages are true.
That’s simply a writing error, I mean that they tried to register as a charity because a religion wasn’t suitable for a charity org, but after this click thing they instantly try and register religion.
From my feeling of suspicion because of strangeness and your answer the default response is to conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about. Or care whether the things you mention as evidence for the advantages are true.
The issue is that there’s no “register as religion” in Germany in the narrow sense. Religions are registered associations (Eingetragene Vereine) or (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts). You would also register a charity as an registered associations.
If a member of your religion wants to say that you threw him out for unfair reasons, then you can argue to the government that you are a religion and don’t have to provide any rational reasons for throwing people out but otherwise there’s not much difference. In that case a judge would decide whether you should be treated as a religion or shouldn’t.
Science Finds God 23:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqvI49IEwU https://www.asimpleclick.org/
A type of “self-help” similar to CBT or so forth, but of course, without any double-blind trial, or placebo-controlled, if it’s possible. But from my point of view, worth investigation, especially in a clinical setting.
What do you think, watching the video, impressions?
Sources:
Harms, E. (1962): “Ethical and Psychological Implications of Religious Conversion”, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 122-131, DOI: 10.2307/3510690
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0272735896000062
Dell, P. F., & O’Neil, J. A. (2009): “Preface”. Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond. New York: Routledge.
Berridge KC, Kringelbach ML (2015). “Pleasure systems in the brain”. Neuron. 86 (3): 646–664. DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/
Cathexis definition by Freud Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (PFL 2) p. 49
Georg Schönbächler, Dragica Stojkovic & Brigitte Boothe (2016) Mapping a gap: the concepts of the wish and wishing in psychoanalysis and the neurosciences,Neuropsychoanalysis, 18:2, 163-177, DOI: 10.1080/15294145.2016.1242295
Multimodal frontostriatal connectivity underlies individual differences in self-esteem, Robert S. Chavez and Todd F.
Heatherton, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA, (2014)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827459/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-control-our-thoughts/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050437/
http://www.matthieuricard.org/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTMvMDUvMTMvMTlfNDZfMzVfNDExX0RhbWJydW5hbmRSaWNhcmQyMDExX19TZWxmX0NlbnRlcmVkbmVzc2FuZFNlbGZsZXNzbmVzcy5wZGYiXV0/DambrunandRicard2011_%20Self-CenterednessandSelflessness.pdf
& more http://pastebin.com/crCiLSYw
Okay, I watched the video and it was impressive. If I start my own cult, I will definitely want to hire your video guy.
My impression is that there are a few good ideas in the core, but they are blown out of proportion (“motte and bailey”). The video is an advertisement, using the standard techniques to create a mountain out of a molehill. It’s impressive and technically well-done, but when you are familiar with the pattern, it’s just the same pattern again.
Generally, it feels like a LessWrong-inspired Scientology clone. They even talk about registering as a religion.
This is how it probably works in reality:
1) Create an effective spiral around a few keywords such as “logic”, by providing a few clever insights, and then insisting that investing as much emotional energy as possible in these few insights will fix everything that is wrong with the world, or at least give you personal superpowers.
2) Subtly redefine “logic” to mean “what our leader says”.
3) Profit!
The video is an advertisement to create a mountain out of a mountain which is not proved to be a mountain yet. Otherwise, your idea will come across as a molehill even if you had a mountain or not, so it might be effective to pretend to be a mountain. I say the latter for the intersubjective reality of lesswrong (as defined in the video). It’s done to raise awareness around the phenomena/get regular folks interested.
It is logical, rational & critical thinking after all. Submitting yourself to rationality isn’t too bad? The word doesn’t matter as much as the process. Because people who value comfort, (presume the theory is correct) will rationalize and be a slave to this comfort, how can any thinking be critical if it stems from a flawed paradigm? Maybe even rationalists take this for granted as a human flaw to justify not getting the emotional part. That was speculation and assuming a lot.(intersubjective)
Are they blown out of proportion because the evidence is the anecdotes/testimonies? We all get it that we need studies and peer-review, that’s what most here would ask for before looking into it but at least see it’s interesting. :D
What is the bait-and-switch here? What’s the partial truth and the underlying falsehood? If you mean with the 4th step not being told before the 3rd and so forth, that makes sense to me, because why wouldn’t it? It’s not like there is a 5th step, it’s all within the video if not there, the website, from there the wiki etc. The steps were generalized in the beginning I think.
In Germany you receive a lot of benefits for registering as a religion, as comparable to charity. The latter which they tried for many months, even getting ripped off by lawyers. Can’t register a charity if you don’t accept money because they simply funnel money to charity themselves without being middle-men. But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I’d guess. Teaching neuroscience, evolutionary biology, AGI, in school in depth isn’t too bad?
You’re not supposed to think but to feeeel man. It’s an emotional thing. An abstract definition of whatever you want the subconscious to attach to is enough (math patterns etc).
Indeed, this isn’t about mathematical logic or whatever. Think of a definition of intelligence, information or stupidity, even known scientists redefine them to escape equations like krauker. Could be seen as metaphor.
I agree that there is this “arms race” between advertisers and consumers, where advertisers always exaggerate, and then consumers learn to discount everything, so if you enter the debate without exaggerating, the consumers will discount anyway, and it will make you seem like a loser.
My impression from this video is that the target audience is, uhm, the people who watch “Zeitgeist” or read “The Secret”, and then can’t stop talking about it for years. (Essentially, people with little critical thinking, searching for the magical “one weird trick” that will solve all their problems.)
And if your audience is the same, then the obvious hypothesis is that your product is also in the same category.
People more rational than this will probably be turned off by this kind of video. I may be wrong here; if any LW regular was impressed positively, please correct me.
Depends on what you mean by that. Assuming you already are 100% rational, it would probably be a good thing. Assuming you are just an aspiring rationalist full of biases and mistaken assumptions, submitting yourself to your “rationality” effectively means submitting yourself to your biases and mistakes. (Or your leader’s biases and mistakes; even if we assume their best intentions.)
You mean those two or three seconds of anecdotes, followed by minutes of the standard advertising technique “this will be the best thing in your life… but before we get to anything specific, let me show you these cool pictures with emotional music… and more pictures and more music… and more… are you hooked on already? good… now more pictures and music… and more vague talk… okay, you have already spent twenty minutes of your time listening to me, so I guess you are ready to buy my product now”.
Let me guess… the teaching will be heavily interspersed with talking about “clicking”.
(This is how Scientologists do it. They take something that already exists out there, simplify it sometimes to absurd levels, mix it with their Scientology lingo, and pretend that L Ron Hubbard invented all of that. If some of that advice worked for you, great, now you are a new believer in Scientology, convinced by your own experience.)
...
Uhm, is there a way to describe your techniques in a manner targeted to readers of LessWrong? You know, facts and proofs (or mere opinions where you admit they are mere opinions), without all this hype and nebulous promises?
Because you keep posting stuff that obviously doesn’t fit the local audience, so why exactly do you keep doing that? This is not the first time you advertised this here.
Do you believe you are doing it the right way? The total lack of upvotes (and occassional downvotes) should be a sufficient hint. Silence is not consent here, unless accompanied by upvotes.
Or do you simply not have any other way to present your stuff? Then I suspect there is simply nothing there, behind the shiny clouds of advertising.
In my opinion, this is a big part of the target audience with the video. Learning about neuroscience/rationality/evolutionary biology and so forth instead of some other curriculum which bases itself on unscientific things has a higher expected value in my opinion. Take a random person, they know nothing about rationality.
This book is written by the same person, if you take a few moments, it’s not long to read some you can understand a little bit more what general public will be pushed towards, what kind of insights: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e3ade7cdccc4aba33789686b9b9d765d7f14ae7b&dn=Real+Answers&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fzer0day.ch%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969 (he’s uploaded it himself)
No, because rational people want to become more rational what’s the problem with a heuristic that is based on “Is this the most rational thing to do in this moment?” Or logical, whatever.
Yes, it’s meant for the general public. Rational people want evidence, scientific studies, peer-review, which is underway but it will take plenty of time. Meanwhile, with the available evidence you can make a decision wheter it is worth pursuing that which you already seek (rationality) but on an emotional level. Which is what it is all about.
I agree, but it still hints towards neuroscience/evolutionary biology within the video and someone who submits themselves to rationality or logic should at least take a moment to read up on it and by visiting the website, wiki and so forth. Of course if the video didn’t mention any of these things someone who values rationality might do things which are a result of a lack of knowledge. But knowledge is what such a person seeks, I presume.
Even if biases and mistakes are introduced it easily be seen as a higher expected value that people do this rather then not, someone who simply studies neuroscience/evolutionary biology and spreads the message is better. Because you have to take account if something is practical or not for the human species and evolving itself.
If you want to capitlize on people aligning rationality with emotions here you have a great shot at you being the leader not the follower as you’ve obviously noticed something which can happen.
MrMind said he was contacting people who ‘clicked’ a long time to see what they’ve done differently since then. Would be interesting to know. You’re right that the video doesn’t go in-depth but it is for a certain audience like I responded just now. Here you can read testimonies: https://logicnation.org/wiki/Testimonies
It’s better if people learn to value critical thinking/rationality in society, clicking only happens if you grow to value something else I think. You can see the world for what it is now.
But it doesn’t already exist out there except for the objective reality. You’re not going to remember an essay while you’re meditating on what drives you emotionally. It is a religion, definetly, this logic stuff, that’s exactly the mechanisms which are used. There are 6 B religious people for a reason. But here they praise neuroscience/evolutionary biology/chaos theory/quantum mechanics/mathematics/rationality the list goes on and on and they pray by doing ‘logial tasks’ in line with what they are.
Of course it’s possible especially if one of you make the connection how emotions drive us.
That’s because of intersubjective reality, the objective reality is indifferent to local audience. What I am giving is the testimonies and the exercise, when studies are out maybe then people of LessWrong will try to ‘click’ themselves. The problem at hand though, I don’t think evidence or rationality really matters that much.
The intersubjective reality is what drives people here and all across the world.
No, of course not, but it would take a long time and besides, studies will speak for themselves if or when they come out.
Sorry, but if I could write like Yudkowsky all of you would at least try it and the world would change for the better. Here’s the time when one of you recognize at least that something is going on and it’s worth more investigation.
I suppose this is the critical point of disagreement between us. Whether “praising science” is the right direction to go. (Because I don’t doubt that your group is doing a good job at making some people praise science.)
More precisely, whether “praising science” leads to more science, or more pseudoscience. Because as long as you believe some specific pseudoscience is science, it is equally easy to praise it… and the pseudoscience has more degrees of freedom than real science, so unless specific precautions are taken, it can outcompete the real science. (In some sense, those “specific precautions” is what makes science science. And worship is definitely not one of them.)
Now reading the book… I am still at the beginning, but it already makes better impression than the video.
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson and more praise science, in the same way, it was just found out recently, actually today. It’s called Spinozism or Spinoza’s God. You can view a video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54
Michio Kaku about Einstein’s God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVg9KnAFak&feature=youtu.be&t=5m44s
Where this leads? This is exactly the same with the exception of the latest neuroscience research which builds and complete this, and this “clicking” thing to logic. What’s been done here is what Tyson asks here literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc&feature=youtu.be&t=373
Personally, “the smartest man in the world” Chris Langan might even be on to this as well.
If Bachir has said he has had this for so many years and accomplished so much, looking at these others with “Spoza’s God” a strong correlation is occurring as a part of our intrinsic need to find patterns in things. However true or false they are. Sagan pushed really hard on critical thinking, and Bachir does as well actually. By the way, then people “click” and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense. But we don’t know 100% sure.
What comes next? Well with this new understanding, the documentary will be reuploaded and this is taken into consideration because it is groundbreaking when it comes to the intersubjective reality. Bachir is also going to be speaking at U.N, where he was invited yesterday. where he will talk about this as well although I don’t know if it was because of this.
It’s going to be called Neurospinozism since understandings in neuroscience completes what was missed on earlier.
P.S I am not a part of this I am just a watcher of his stream.
Intelligence tests are already developed and quite cheap. Testing these claims empirically would take about 2 hours and 20 dollars per person.
Those tests are pretty sensible to training effects, so giving them twice to the same person would result in a higher score the second time almost no matter what.
Good point, but the experiment could have a control group which doesn’t do anything but takes the tests twice.
And someone probably already did the control-group part of this experiment, i.e. measured how much does the IQ increase after test retake. So we just need to know if the measured IQ of the people who “clicked” increases more that that.
Also, as far as I remember, the effect is something like plus 5 or 10 IQ points. (May differ for different tests, though. Some tests have multiple variants, so even if you benefit from the training, at least you cannot benefit from remembering the correct answers in the previous test.) The people who “clicked” report that their intelligence increased tenfold or hundredfold—they obviously use a different scale, but if that corresponds to +5 or more IQ point, it should be measurable.
Intelligence is not only analytical skills, rhetoric, pattern recognition, more abstract things. Working memory tests might measure g but not overall intelligence, Krakauer defines intelligence and stupidity in specific ways:
You can ask when you’re a neurospinozist and have logic as your core value, what is the problem which we are given? To understand the world, God, but what else? Why do we have this amazing brain with neuroplasticity, and why do most of us use it to feed something like comfort or validation when looking at neuroscience these things are so flawed?
Personally might be social conditioning, I click into it when I am writing this because it’s just right there in front of us.
Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P
Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually no dragon in the garage.
But that’s not true, science hasn’t contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.
Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer’s definition as well before and after. It’s unlikely g—general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn’t have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.
:)
Linking to Youtube video’s doesn’t help your case.
People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it’s not easy to understand that one doesn’t understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.
That’s something that people say who don’t understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren’t 100% sure, what’s the probability that you attach to your theory being true?
An excellent video which talks about Spinoza and Spinozism, which Einstein and Sagan had faith in… doesn’t help my case? In the same manner, you assume that Spinoza and this isn’t linked, without refuting it.
If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally. If people report wanting to understand the world and is reiterated multiple times, doesn’t go along with the belief you already know it all. You presume that they are lying, in the same manner, Einstein or Sagan lied about their belief in the God of Spinoza. How do we know if someone has converted or not? (I presume that there is a link between God of Spinoza and intelligence, it seems more likely than before, even if it’s a correlation this exercise might imply causality)
I was euphoric, it was a heuristic. I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning or how to make a calculation outside of intuition. Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself I have too little data honestly. But since we know now that Einstein and Sagan had a similar belief, it seems more likely that this religion will spread but I don’t know how much. If you have the intersubjective/objective definitions from earlier (in the documentary) Spinozism is very intersubjective I presume.
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
Yes.
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
How do you know? Did you do a literature search?
https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you’ve read it before, it’s been updated now.
I can agree, I shouldn’t have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.
Yes.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
Well, it’s very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can’t be certain of it. I wouldn’t know what to search for. It’s like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.
In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock’s Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
I understand what you mean. Do you have any suggestions where to start?
Do you know how you can access scientific papers?
Yes, I have used pubmed, although I am not that good at searching yet. After that, I get the full papers from sci-hub.
That paragraph sounds like you think in the US terms of registering organsiation. Which actual German registrations do you mean?
I don’t know, that’s what I heard. Are you familiar with German registrations?
I’m familiar enough to get the impression that what you are saying seems strange. I’m German.
Maybe you can email reese or something reese@gamingforgood.net if you are this interested. I have no clue.
It’s hard for me to google because it’s probably in german so you have an easier time. Registering as a charity seems to give tax benefits, religion might not even exist as registration, if so it might be some form of U.N registration.
Might say something here or the links in the wiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaubensgemeinschaft
You saying that you have no clue whether what you said previously said is wrong? First you claim that registering as religion provides benefits and then you claim that it might not exist?
To me your response of giving me the email of Reese (whoever that is) sounds like you don’t care about whether what you are saying is true enough to check it for yourself.
Well, I assume that there has to be some form of registration at some level, for example, to accept donations as they have to be taxed. It’s important when you talk with people to not butcher what they say, write out of context, yes you are right. But you can respond to an entire message.
I figure you were suspicious and welcomed you to investigate, you are the one who read and writes german here and can research the tax agency or whatever. It seems as you just want to be right and don’t care whether something is strange or not.
The most likely explanation is that what you said is simply a reflection of misunderstanding what someone else told you.
No research of German laws will give me an idea about what you meant with “But after this new knowledge, they instantly did it I’d guess”.
From my feeling of suspicion because of strangeness and your answer the default response is to conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about. Or care whether the things you mention as evidence for the advantages are true.
That’s simply a writing error, I mean that they tried to register as a charity because a religion wasn’t suitable for a charity org, but after this click thing they instantly try and register religion.
I don’t understand.
The issue is that there’s no “register as religion” in Germany in the narrow sense. Religions are registered associations (Eingetragene Vereine) or (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts). You would also register a charity as an registered associations.
If a member of your religion wants to say that you threw him out for unfair reasons, then you can argue to the government that you are a religion and don’t have to provide any rational reasons for throwing people out but otherwise there’s not much difference. In that case a judge would decide whether you should be treated as a religion or shouldn’t.